Message-ID: <23120260.1075858682614.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: susan.mara@enron.com
To: wanda.curry@enron.com
Subject: RE: PG&E
Cc: diann.huddleson@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com, c..williams@enron.com, 
	b..sanders@enron.com, lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, 
	d..steffes@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bcc: diann.huddleson@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com, c..williams@enron.com, 
	b..sanders@enron.com, lisa.mellencamp@enron.com, 
	d..steffes@enron.com, jeff.dasovich@enron.com
X-From: Mara, Susan </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SMARA>
X-To: Curry, Wanda </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Wcurry>
X-cc: Huddleson, Diann </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Notesaddr/cn=42fc33c8-1b17856e-86256583-4c4c89>, Tribolet, Michael </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Mtribole>, Williams, Robert C. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rwillia2>, Sanders, Richard B. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Rsander>, Mellencamp, Lisa </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lmellen>, Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>, Dasovich, Jeff </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jdasovic>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged)\Sanders, Richard B.\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: Sanders, Richard B (Non-Privileged).pst

I reviewed the document and it seems fairly accurate.  I have a slight disa=
greement with one statement, as follows: "The Commission's reference to "su=
rcharge" can be interpreted to mean both the one cent and three cent surcha=
rges given that both surcharges were granted similar treatment in D.01-03-0=
82."  I don't agree that this is so black and white.  One can also take the=
 interpretation that it was meant to apply only to the 3 cent and not to th=
e 1 cent surcharge.  Obviously, SCE took the former interpretation and PG&E=
 the latter.  That is one reason why we have been very careful about attack=
ing this issue.   AReM has protested PG&E charging the one cent surcharge a=
nd supported Edison's approach in responding to the advice letters filed mo=
nths ago.  AReM continues to work with the CPUC staff to get the staff to s=
upport AReM when it responds to the advice letters.  Be aware that there ar=
e strong forces working against ESPs and anything potentially favorable to =
them. The more we can accomplish this under the radar screen, the better of=
f we will be. Commissioner Wood is still attacking retroactivity and many h=
ave raised the "cost shifting" issue.  In other words, we can still lose th=
e 3 cent exclusion.  We have to be careful how we proceed.

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Curry, Wanda =20
Sent:=09Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:28 PM
To:=09Mara, Susan
Subject:=09FW: PG&E

Lisa had asked that I give you a call re the attached file.  I think you ar=
e the most knowledgeable to review it and provide comments.  We will be usi=
ng this in the meeting with PG&E on Thursday.

Thanks,
Wanda

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Mellencamp, Lisa =20
Sent:=09Monday, October  22, 2001 9:49 AM
To:=09Curry, Wanda; Huddleson, Diann; Tribolet, Michael; Williams, Robert C=
.; Sanders, Richard B.
Subject:=09FW: PG&E


please let me know if any of you disagree/have comments
 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Simmons, Linda J. =20
Sent:=09Friday, October 19, 2001 3:49 PM
To:=09Mellencamp, Lisa
Subject:=09FW: PG&E



 -----Original Message-----
From: =09MDay <MDay@GMSSR.com>@ENRON =20
Sent:=09Friday, October 19, 2001 3:46 PM
To:=09Simmons, Linda J.
Subject:=09RE: PG&E

Here is our settlement sheet on the one cent surcharge, attached below.
Mike Day





 - X28655.DOC [Mellencamp, Lisa]   << File: X28655.DOC >> 